Login

russian armor

Penals, the Elephant in the room

PAGES (8)down
8 Dec 2020, 10:40 AM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Fully agree.
Lets come up with ideas how to buff sniper and M3 in soviet thread together.

Great then stop disagreeing with my every post and start making suggestions.


Rifles work very well actually, having AT nade and all and vet making them very durable, allowing them to stay longer in combat under small arms fire. RETs are simply cheaper and that's all, but it does not mean rifles are not viable for the role.

VGs have no AT, PFs do, but I don't see anyone complaining about them despite initial(including mine) concerns.

Regardless of what you claim AT riflemen are not popular.

If PF designed is the correct one then it should be implement to Penal also because PF are UP when they are build.


I have no idea why you would ever mention IS at all, knowing how they function other then "for the sake of an argument.

It does not matter how you want to label PGs, they are, just like Penals, an AI specialist with AT upgrade.
You can't pretend they don't count just because of different weapon profile and other semantics, I have never said "rifle infantry", I said "strong AI infantry".

You are the one arguing semantics here not me I am simply pointing out that PG and Penal are used differently. Penal building include 3-4 Penal available from 1 while PG come later and only 1-2 are usually build.
8 Dec 2020, 10:46 AM
#23
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

Given the current state of the game and from my awesome 5 minute thought full rework redesign plan which has no flaws whatsoever or any chance of backfiring this is what i came with. /s

---Support weapon company (T2) becomes T1. No further changes.

---Special Rifle comp (T1) becomes T2. Cut cost by half.
-New T2 requires T1 and it becomes an optional tier. T3 requires T1 and T4 requires T3.
-Penals becomes analog to PG once again (increase cost and buff). Maybe balance them around been a 5 man squad and not sure how historically correct could be to give them zooks cause that would solve the gap of Soviets having a real AT infantry unit to deal with heavy TDs in team games now that we plan on nerfing ram (and probable in the future IL2).
-Sniper can be given utility buffs.
-M3 can see further buffs now that it arrives at a later timing.



Yeah I love this idea. Tier 1 has always been a cheesy risk/reward tier because of lack of support weapons, especially AT guns. If M3 wasn't available at the very start of game like it is now, it could get a lot of buffs without being too cheesy and OP.
8 Dec 2020, 10:47 AM
#24
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 10:34 AMVipper

Then penals is not a real solution but just a sweep that moves problem under the rug.

Funny thing is that you claim conscripts "do not cut it" while many people claim that the same applies to both VG and Grenadiers. So if all mainlines infantries do not cut then "semi-elite" simply to belong in the same time frame.


Calling a solution that works "not a real solution" is just you being too prideful to change your opinion on Penal troops.

There are many units that don't cut it by themselves but require other units to supplement them to make the faction as a whole operate properly. See main battle tanks supplemented by TDs for example. There is no reason why making combined arms play work better than single unit spam is 'not a real solution'.
8 Dec 2020, 10:47 AM
#25
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 10:40 AMVipper

Great then stop disagreeing with my every post and start making suggestions.

I am disagreeing exclusively with the ones that make no sense what so ever.
I will always agree with a good idea and spot on problem.
But that's not the case for 99 out of 100 suggestions you make.

Regardless of what you claim AT riflemen are not popular.

And regardless of what you claim, penal spam is not popular nor strong.

If PF designed is the correct one then it should be implement to Penal also because PF are UP when they are build.

I have never said its correctly designed.
I have said AT upgrade is not problematic there.

You are the one arguing semantics here not me I am simply pointing out that PG and Penal are used differently. Penal building include 3-4 Penal available from 1 while PG come later and only 1-2 are usually build.

Yes, they are used differently.
Does not change the fact that both are AI specialist units with AT ugprade.
No, penal builds do not include 3-4 penals from get go, because penal meta is dead for a long time, people learned to survive early game against them and they are roflstomped in mid and late game.
Currently you will see 1 penal for AT, 2 at best with cons being backbone infantry.
8 Dec 2020, 10:49 AM
#26
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Yeah I love this idea. Tier 1 has always been a cheesy risk/reward tier because of lack of support weapons, especially AT guns. If M3 wasn't available at the very start of game like it is now, it could get a lot of buffs without being too cheesy and OP.


It's not that cheese is bad, but most of the COH playerbase are lactose intolerant. The cheese was removed and now you have a tier which lacks the punch but has all the risks still attached to them.
8 Dec 2020, 10:50 AM
#27
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



It's not that cheese is bad, but most of the COH playerbase are lactose intolerant. The cheese was removed and now you have a tier which lacks the punch but has all the risks still attached to them.

That's very well put.

We basically have small scale "brits post nerfs" case, where gimmicks were nerfed or removed and we're left with core in need of proper buffs to make up for lack of crutches.
8 Dec 2020, 11:04 AM
#28
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Calling a solution that works "not a real solution" is just you being too prideful to change your opinion on Penal troops.

There are many units that don't cut it by themselves but require other units to supplement them to make the faction as a whole operate properly. See main battle tanks supplemented by TDs for example. There is no reason why making combined arms play work better than single unit spam is 'not a real solution'.

What you are suggesting is to buff conscripts because Penal do not cut it. That does not make sense.

Grenadier do not cut and they are simply replaced by osstruppen/assault grenadier not supplemented.

VG do not cut so people simply play Ostheer.

Once more if 3 out 5 mainlines infatry do not "cut it" the problem lies elsewhere and they should not be buffed, but this a debate for another thread.
8 Dec 2020, 11:11 AM
#29
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 11:04 AMVipper

What you are suggesting is to buff conscripts because Penal do not cut it. That does not make sense.

He is saying that combined arms are stronger then single unit spam you unpeeled orange.

Grenadier do not cut and they are simply replaced by osstruppen/assault grenadier not supplemented.

*when spammed with no support at all

VG do not cut so people simply play Ostheer.

*in late game with no support at all

Once more if 3 out 5 mainlines infatry do not "cut it" the problem lies elsewhere and they should not be buffed, but this a debate for another thread.

Yeah, specifically in the part where these 3 factions with weak and cheap infantry try to play like the 2 other faction that are balanced around self sufficient, expensive strong mainlines.

But that is not balance problem.
That's a potato for a brain Timmy thinking he can use grens like they were rifles despite access to multiple supporting units very early into the game.

Even penals, despite you being so wrongly and stubbornly convinced otherwise, do NOT work when spammed with no support now that they are balanced and people know how to deal with them.
8 Dec 2020, 11:16 AM
#31
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 11:04 AMVipper

What you are suggesting is to buff conscripts because Penal do not cut it. That does not make sense.

Grenadier do not cut and they are simply replaced by osstruppen/assault grenadier not supplemented.

VG do not cut so people simply play Ostheer.

Once more if 3 out 5 mainlines infatry do not "cut it" the problem lies elsewhere and they should not be buffed, but this a debate for another thread.


No, I am saying conscripts don't cut it and they should be supplemented with proper HMGs or Penal troops. So that the faction does not hinge on T70. The reason why people don't supplement their conscripts is the excessive upgrage cost of Conscripts forcing you to spam them to make them worth their tech investment. Leaving no MP room for Penals/T2 units.
8 Dec 2020, 13:55 PM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



No, I am saying conscripts don't cut it and they should be supplemented with proper HMGs or Penal troops. So that the faction does not hinge on T70. The reason why people don't supplement their conscripts is the excessive upgrage cost of Conscripts forcing you to spam them to make them worth their tech investment. Leaving no MP room for Penals/T2 units.


Any issues about conscripts not cutting it can be debated in the other thread about mainline infatry.

As for the T1 it rather dirty cheap since it tech that also provides access to satchel, PTRS, AT satchels with no additional cost.

Since we agree that T1 does not work as intended and that the changes for this patch little actually help it work better, do you that T1 is badly designed?
8 Dec 2020, 14:02 PM
#34
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Given the current state of the game and from my awesome 5 minute thought full rework redesign plan which has no flaws whatsoever or any chance of backfiring this is what i came with. /s

---Support weapon company (T2) becomes T1. No further changes.

---Special Rifle comp (T1) becomes T2. Cut cost by half.
-New T2 requires T1 and it becomes an optional tier. T3 requires T1 and T4 requires T3.
-Penals becomes analog to PG once again (increase cost and buff). Maybe balance them around been a 5 man squad and not sure how historically correct could be to give them zooks cause that would solve the gap of Soviets having a real AT infantry unit to deal with heavy TDs in team games now that we plan on nerfing ram (and probable in the future IL2).
-Sniper can be given utility buffs.
-M3 can see further buffs now that it arrives at a later timing.


There might be a simpler way for this approach (although their might be simpler design) of a optional t1.

Special Rifle Com. (T1) fuel cost removed now does not count as tech.
Penals are rebalanced starting weaker.
All abilities and weapons upgrade for penal now have a fuel cost.
8 Dec 2020, 14:26 PM
#35
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I took the liberty of copying this from another thread since I found it be relevant (I hope you do not mind and I can removed if you do not want me to copy it here)

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2020, 14:33 PMGiaA
Once again good changes.

A few problems:



M3 change is fantastic. However T1 requires further buffs. T1 is still extremely weak due to the following reasons:

A. The only T1 AT option forces you to give up the Anti infantry strength of your mainline.

B. The AT option itself is bad because it doesn't have enough damage output to avoid getting forced to retreat or at least getting bled before the vehicle is pushed back.

C. You only have very few snares (2 max) and they have very limited range. This is particularly problematic when using the Sniper.

D. ATGuns are the most cost efficient units in the game so there's very little reason not to get ZIS-Guns.

Sanders suggestion of giving the PTRS upgrade three PTRS while increasing the price accordingly would solve problem b. but enhance problem c. All your early AT on one squad would mean that if that squad gets pinned or forced to retreat you are completely exposed.

My preferred solution:

- Move PTRS to Cons, unlocked with T1 build
- Penal AT Satchels get unlocked with AT nade tech
- Possibly give Penals Molotovs
- decreased Penal buildtime

This directly solves Problems C. and A. because a mix of Cons and Penals combined with AT nade tech would lead to normal amounts of snares and Penals no longer have to waste their AI strength by upgrading PTRS. It would also partly solve Problem B. because cons bleed less when getting slaughtered by the vehicle they're fighting. Better Penal Buildtime would give the T1 opening quicker map presence. It would still be significantly weaker than a con opening in this regard.

Penals would now function as a supplement to cons (which from my understanding makes perfect sense thematically). Realistically you'd probably only get 1 (when combined with a sniper) or 2 most of the time because you'll want two PTRS cons for AT. 2 Cons, 3 Penals into T70 would be very manpower heavyy but not unthinkable. Encouraging Con/Penal Combos has the additional advantage that it allows for usage of merge and sandbags which both benefit penals but isn't enough of a reason to mix the two in the current version since Penals don't benefit at all from the at nade upgrade so you might as well just spam cons to make it worthwhile. For the same reason i would at least consider giving penals molotovs.
....
8 Dec 2020, 14:30 PM
#36
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 14:02 PMVipper

There might be a simpler way for this approach (although their might be simpler design) of a optional t1.

Special Rifle Com. (T1) fuel cost removed now does not count as tech.
Penals are rebalanced starting weaker.
All abilities and weapons upgrade for penal now have a fuel cost.


Did you think why this doesn't work? Weaker Penals early on just pushes people back to Conscripts even more. We already had this design with Penals prior to their rework and even when the tier was stronger (better sniper and situation for M3, people didn't bother with it) the tier was dead. PTRS is rather poor AT and barely holds grounds against light when used aggressively (check Luvnest response).

I've said in the past that the weapon/abilities for the Penals can be linked to the ones for Conscripts but that's before all the nerfs they have already received.

IIRC, at 160mp, it's not a competitive tech with further weaker units.


EDIT: the Gia suggestion MIGHT work but it creates further ramifications and needs adjusting of many more other things than just the core units involved.
8 Dec 2020, 14:48 PM
#37
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Did you think why this doesn't work? Weaker Penals early on just pushes people back to Conscripts even more. We already had this design with Penals prior to their rework and even when the tier was stronger (better sniper and situation for M3, people didn't bother with it) the tier was dead. PTRS is rather poor AT and barely holds grounds against light when used aggressively (check Luvnest response).

I do not think that comparison with situation before the July patch is an indication of anything since the soviet faction had completely different design.


I've said in the past that the weapon/abilities for the Penals can be linked to the ones for Conscripts but that's before all the nerfs they have already received.

IIRC, at 160mp, it's not a competitive tech with further weaker units.

MP cost could easily be lower. This design allows earlier access to m3 and sniper compared to
your suggestions after T2.



EDIT: the Gia suggestion MIGHT work but it creates further ramifications and needs adjusting of many more other things than just the core units involved.

or one could simply add a pure AT infatry in T1.

8 Dec 2020, 14:57 PM
#38
avatar of Lady Xenarra

Posts: 956

Give release COH2 Penals with flamer and 6 G43 like Rifles. You can't powercreep if you "nerf" them back to what they originally were.






:lol::lol::lol:

One of the many reasons I quit 1v1 back in the day. Flamer Penals.
8 Dec 2020, 15:01 PM
#39
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



:lol::lol::lol:

One of the many reasons I quit 1v1 back in the day. Flamer Penals.

One of the most broken things (at least stock) and it probably remained broken for the longest time (around 6 months if I remember correctly).

And many people warned about the change many times before it become live.
Pip
8 Dec 2020, 15:02 PM
#40
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

Personally, my preferred solution to the Penal Question would be to put them in tier 0 as an actual alternative to Conscripts, giving them perhaps a Panzerfusilier treatment, and then to place something else in Tier 1 to replace them (I would personally want (AT-focused?) Nondoc Guards, or some other AT solution.)

My suggestion would be to make them more "Assault" oriented Conscripts, befitting their theming as Strafniki.

Cursory suggestions include: Similar pricing, begins with Mosins but may upgrade to SVTs (or SVTs + Thompson-style profiled PPSH, or some other weapon variation), maintains To The Last Man (Or some similar ability), and ideally would even have Merge. I would likely not give them Sandbags or Oorah, however.

They would also benefit from the same side-tech upgrades as Conscripts, which would give them a slightly different set of tools. (I.E, HE grenade and reworked AT satchel (Shorter range than AT grenade, but would guarantee an engine critical, perhaps? Alternately just hand them the regular AT nade)) This would include Mobilise Reserves. This part of the suggestion would obviate issues with Conscript Tech Costs either forcing you to have Conblobs or no cons at all.

I think giving Soviets two equally usable mainline infantry options nondoctrinally might be an interesting factional gimmick, and is ostensibly what Penals are SUPPOSED to be already (By some accounts).

As I say, this really is mostly cursory musing, If it's an idea anyone thinks might actually be workable in any way I'll go ahead and put some more thought into it and develop some actual figures/work out kinks. I think there is definitely a lot of room for improvement/criticism to be levied.

I realise this suggestion makes both units rather similar, but I think there is room to make them both unique.




PAGES (8)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

SHOUT IT OUT!

No ProfanityNumber of ShoutsRefresh Shout Box
Rosbone: Hopefully we can look back and laugh in a couple years. But the Steam reviews are diving again so... :guyokay:
Last Thursday, 08:03 AM
Rosbone: @donofsandiego The counts are up a little. Coh3 actually passes Coh2 for a short period now. So Coh3 is no longer shit. It has a way to go to be "good". But it is healing. :gimpy:
Last Thursday, 08:01 AM
donofsandiego: :foreveralone::gimpy::mcsteve:
Last Thursday, 06:28 AM
donofsandiego: Last time I was on here my good friend Rosbone told me that CoH 3 is shit because it doesn't have visible kill counts. Well, it has them now. Where are the players?
Last Thursday, 06:27 AM
Rosbone: @Soheil Relic is in a hard spot. They need players for Coh3 so it hurts their Coh3 sales to make Coh2 even better than it already is. So we are all lost waiting for Coh3 to get finished to our liking.
Last Thursday, 02:50 AM
Rosbone: @Sinsa-Koso You can request it. But it will never be deleted :romeoHairDay:
Last Thursday, 02:48 AM
Sinsa-Koso: Hello! Can I request my account be deleted?
Last Thursday, 02:28 AM
Soheil: Coh3 neither has realistic graphic nor diversity anyway , The big issue im coh2 is cheaters . Developers do not care about these map hackers or sync hackers who most of them are chinese
Last Wednesday, 21:56 PM
Rosbone: @DIRTY_FINISHER My guess is none of those people play coh3 and are mostly gone from the community :snfPeter:
Last Wednesday, 07:17 AM
DIRTY_FINISHER: Whens the “player council” going to accept some responsibility for the failure that is COH3. Considering they had influence on development and impact to in game units/mechanics :)
Last Tuesday, 15:46 PM
oakdk: Anybody know what has happende to coh3 forums on relic webpage ?
Last Monday, 11:26 AM
Willy Pete: Blasphemy. @aerafield get to work on this fool
Last Monday, 03:58 AM
Reverb: coh3 is not a good game i must say
14 Dec 2024, 23:34 PM
Reverb: relic should stop coh3 and do hing with coh2 again and make new maps and balance and units and make player base 10000 again
14 Dec 2024, 23:34 PM
aerafield: Rico will save this forum
13 Dec 2024, 16:52 PM
Rosbone: Player 8 (Rico) has entered the game.
13 Dec 2024, 11:41 AM
Osinyagov: Since it's the only coh-related source left in my list (funny and sad at the same time)
08 Dec 2024, 07:56 AM
Osinyagov: @Gbpirate I am visiting site from time to time, see some content here would be great
08 Dec 2024, 07:55 AM
Rosbone: Fatality!
08 Dec 2024, 03:13 AM
Brick Top: you only need one veto to veto coh3 :thumb:
07 Dec 2024, 22:56 PM

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

244 users are online: 244 guests
1 post in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49972
Welcome our newest member, rockytiki
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM